But while no one should feel guilty about taking advantage of today’s technology that allows us to live more comfortably, people should feel guilty about keeping a house “frosty” during the warm months and downright hot in the cold months.

When you condition the air in an entire house (especially one that is much bigger than you really need it to be) just so you can be comfortable in one room, you are wasting a non-renewable resource as well as contributing to environmental harm.

Although some people don’t want to believe that mankind is responsible for the global climate change that is taking place, no one can deny that we have caused the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels and forests (human activities that have been done on an unprecedented scale since the industrial revolution) has a different isotopic composition than atmospheric CO2 and thus is identifiable to source.

(“Isotope” means “same type.” Carbon isotopes are carbon atoms that behave the same chemically but which have different masses.)

So instead of keeping your house at 70 degrees in summer, you could keep it between 76 and 78 (depending upon humidity) and employ a small fan to cool you in each room. Instead of heating the house to 78 degrees and wearing a T-shirt inside in winter, set the thermostat for 68 and dress appropriately for the season (i.e., put on heavier clothes).

Live reasonably instead of extravagantly (i.e., wastefully). Most people don’t require “an array of electronic toys, as well as banks of overhead lights embedded in [their] ceilings.” In fact, if people were more conscientious about turning off lights when they aren’t needed, we wouldn’t be having “those ugly bulbs with mercury inside” forced upon us. The best way to limit energy consumption will always be to simply have the switch set to off!

As long as people make choices that are self-indulgent, lavishing their money unsparingly upon themselves, the Earth and its inhabitants will suffer the consequences.

6 comments

"As long as people make choices that are self-indulgent, lavishing their money unsparingly upon themselves, the Earth and its inhabitants will suffer the consequences."

Right on Marlene. Of course in the industrialized nations we'll always look self-indulgent in comparison to tribal lifestyles. But no one needs 5000 sq feet in Glenmore and two climate-controlled empty vacation homes. And our county is full of this type of princess.

jimi hendrix August 22nd, 2012 | 2:17pm

My fav, the soccer mom sitting in her running car with AC going during the kids practice. Yeah, usually an SUV.

Bill Marshall August 22nd, 2012 | 2:49pm

Enjoy it while you can ,,,, once the two billion chinese and one billion in india come onto the grid it is all over anyhow.

We are shipping trainloads of dirty coal over there so they can use it to power themsleves into the 21 century.

Once they harness their own reserves of coal and natural gas all is lost.

So the cows in canada will have more to eat and those along the equator will fry.

Good thin we have planes trains and automobiles to get them to canada....

Minus Population growth August 23rd, 2012 | 8:46am

Single people who have had no children, can live in what ever size house they want and keep the temperature at what ever they want. They have done more for the earth by not having children than the suburban environmentalist with children who write about the size of houses or turning the temperature up or down.

U.H.G. August 23rd, 2012 | 12:15pm

Thanks "Minus Population Growth" for having the guts to say what most hypocritical childbearing environmentalists are afraid to hear.